I know it's a little early but being 3 wins and 5 losses, let's take a look at our run home after the bye.
Adelaide (MCG)
Brisbane (GABBA)
Geelong (ES)
Hawthorn (MCG)
Giants (SPO)
Collingwood (MCG)
St Kilda (ES)
Sydney (SCG
North (ES)
Freo (PS)
Gold Coast (ES)
Geelong (ES)
Port (AO)
Scum (MCG)
I've highlighted the games I feel we can definitely win playing at our current level.
We certainly have a very tough run home from round 17 onwards. If we win the ones I have us down as winning we will finish with 8 wins and 14 losses. I really can't see us pinching too many and and can see us possibly dropping the Adelaide and Essendon games. Tough times ahead unless the side starts to show a lot more.
We'll probably lose to the Giants and beat Collingwood ::)
It'll depend each week which Carlton side turns up but that looks about what I'd expect.
The Essendon game may depend on who turns up for them ;)
I think we'll play better football towards the end of the season but it may not be enough to pinch some of those games
GC is winnable down here and there's always upsets (though we're likely to drop one we should win). Maybe we can get to 10 wins. Whilst still poor, its an okay result after starting zip and four.
I think we'll play better football towards the end of the season but it may not be enough to pinch some of those games
I expected that last year but history says this team plays worse in the second half of the year (which will admittedly be difficult this year)
Reckon we ll be a better side if we can get Judd, Carrots and Waite back in the side and up and firing. this will help us get across the line in a few more games then we think.
Yep if those three come back and play well and the side in general play with more passion, I reckon that we can pick up a few more for sure. I think finals are out of our reach though, going to be very difficult from here on in. Must start with a win vs Adelaide.
If we win 8 games I would be ecstatic
I think we'll play better football towards the end of the season but it may not be enough to pinch some of those games
I expected that last year but history says this team plays worse in the second half of the year (which will admittedly be difficult this year)
I'm basing that on the fact that quite a few of our players had restricted pre-seasons
Players like Henderson (for example) will get better with games and uninterrupted training
Of course if we have further serious injuries that could throw that theory out the window.
If we win 8 games I would be ecstatic
This is what I expect we will win.
About half a dozen less than I would have thought at the start of the year
The bar has been lowered.
It's a limbo not a high jump. :(
is anyone happy with 8 wins?
is anyone happy with 8 wins?
Nope.....but it's not over yet ;)
So expect 8 ......and anything better is a bonus :D
is anyone happy with 8 wins?
Yes. I would love nothing better than win the next 6 or 7 in a row and start something special rolling. But given we are 3-5 with losses to craptrucks like Melb and Rich, it aint gonna happen. When we are at our worst, we look like we couldn't beat egg! We could turn the 1/2 way mark 5-5 but then we will get hammered by good sides. This year is most probably a write off as far as Im concerned. I think the number of pre season ops and interrupted pre seasons has been played down very much. Last time this happened coupled with injuries to players during the season, a coach got the ar$e. I reckon:
- Play some more kids
- continue to improve whilst getting some "strategic" losses and finish as low as possible.
- clean out another 25% at years end
- load up with KPs from the drafft
- get ops done early
- pre season here in the heat (fork Arizona)
- do some serious work in building some consistency in our game
Have a good crack next year starting rnd 1. Early wins in a row are critical.
I'll be happy with 8 wins provided I see another 1 or 2 of the recently drafted players show some serious potential. If Gilles and any one of Holman, Reynolds or Johnson shows some series upside I'll be over the moon.
Ok serious question time...
If we are happy with 8 wins in a season and losing to Melbourne why did we sack Ratten?
Adelaide (MCG)
Brisbane (GABBA)
Geelong (ES)
Hawthorn (MCG)
Giants (SPO)
Collingwood (MCG)
St Kilda (ES)
Sydney (SCG
North (ES)
Freo (PS)
Gold Coast (ES)
Geelong (ES)
Port (AO)
Scum (MCG)
In the run home if we account for those players we will get back, I don't see any reason why we can't achieve the above.
Ok serious question time...
If we are happy with 8 wins in a season and losing to Melbourne why did we sack Ratten?
Because the value of a head coach isn't judged on game science alone. In a realistic sense head coach has duty to direct many of the other departments and people that exist to support the overall vision (which he is responsible for delivering). It's fair to say that a group has to be pulling in the same direction to achieve success. It's been reported that Ratts wasn't that way inclined, that there were some difficulties around managing people, and that he interpreted difference of opinion as personally offensive rather rather than professionally constructive. His forte is predominately the science of the game , rather than that, as well as science of people and the organization. That's why he is an excellent
assistant coach. Clearly it had more to do with lack of faith in him as head coach in broader sense, rather than win loss record, the club even implied as such.
Facts D_U, let's deal with the cold hard facts.
Obviously I can't substantiate what's been reported in the media so you got me on that one. What I can say though, is that a person that should know, has told me that since his arrival, MM has put into place various long overdue structures that were otherwise lacking.
Anyway I didn't want this to turn into a Malthouse thread so.......
I dont think its possible to totally avoid it doing so. So much of other discussions topics benefit from the contextual link.
Yeah well fair enough. I hope I don't get in trouble! No doubt many will accuse me of starting this thread to top up my so called agenda.:P
Anyway, once again, his structures don't seem to be working thus far. In the end coaches are judged by wins and losses and position on the ladder and ATM, it isn't working from my perspective and no I don't think 8 wins is anywhere near enough and no I will not buy into any 'structures in place' excuses should we be 8 wins at the end of the year.
Yeah well fair enough. I hope I don't get in trouble! No doubt many will accuse me of starting this thread to top up my so called agenda.:P
Anyway, once again, his structures don't seem to be working thus far. In the end coaches are judged by wins and losses and position on the ladder and ATM, it isn't working from my perspective and no I don't think 8 wins is anywhere near enough and no I will not buy into any 'structures in place' excuses should we be 8 wins at the end of the year.
Can't see how you can be blamed, Shadsey asked the question, and a relevant one at that.
Fair enough re your opinion on MM and win ratio, you should express what you think, after all that's what the site is for.
Might I add if we managed to get a few players back as mentioned and we could knock a few of those other sides off and end up with 11 wins I think that performance would have some merit. We could just as easily only get 5-6 wins for the year as well, that would be a disaster.
Might I add if we managed to get a few players back as mentioned and we could knock a few of those other sides off and end up with 11 wins I think that performance would have some merit. We could just as easily only get 5-6 wins for the year as well, that would be a disaster.
TBH I have a good feeling about the second half of the year. With Judd returning, and some of the other players growing in confidence you just never know.
Oh, and MM's offensive defensive strategy will help 2 lol
It's a bit relative isn't it.
If someone had said to you after the Richmond final last year......would you be happy with eight wins next year?.....you would have told them not to be stupid.
You probably would have still said the same after the Swans game.
After Round 4 this year you would have probably said "Yes please.....I'll take that!"
Right now, in this thread, we're probably 50/50 OK with it.
But eight is a disappointment if we finish up there .......because it means we're back to pre -2008 levels in terms of win/loss.
Ok serious question time...
If we are happy with 8 wins in a season and losing to Melbourne why did we sack Ratten?
At the start of this season? No.
At the end of 2012? screw no.
Expectations change though. We're comfortable with it because of the "if Mick can't do it, no one can" attitude and everyone at the club having a stake in Mick keeping his job
That's the thing, we're not being unreasonable in our expectations are we?
Thanks Denim...
I to am not trying to turn this into a Ratten thing but if we look at this objectively.
Ratten was sacked because he was perceived to have underperformed. We said top 4 was the goal and were top of the ladder at 4-1 after 5 rounds.
He was sacked as 11 wins and a loss to the Gold Coast was deemed unacceptable for this list.
Now we have a coach who most are happy with, to win 8 games and lose to Melbourne with, because he said the list isn't good enough. Again, if Ratten won 11 games and we played finals last year (by default, but still won one), why are we judging coaches on different criteria and accepting mediocrity from one but not the other?
Worst part was Lloyd predicted it before anyone else. Should have paid attention to him, sometimes an outside perspective is needed - even Lloyd's.
We have Yarran, Menzel & Buckley to look forward to at least. BTW what happened to improving the last ten players on the list? We just arse them now?
Thanks Denim...
I to am not trying to turn this into a Ratten thing but if we look at this objectively.
Ratten was sacked because he was perceived to have underperformed. We said top 4 was the goal and were top of the ladder at 4-1 after 5 rounds.
He was sacked as 11 wins and a loss to the Gold Coast was deemed unacceptable for this list.
Now we have a coach who most are happy with, to win 8 games and lose to Melbourne with, because he said the list isn't good enough. Again, if Ratten won 11 games and we played finals last year (by default, but still won one), why are we judging coaches on different criteria and accepting mediocrity from one but not the other?
That's the way I see it. Some see it as fair because the new coach's reputation precedes him. Every coach has a use-by date however and in the last decade or so we've found two of them!
Thanks Denim...
I to am not trying to turn this into a Ratten thing but if we look at this objectively.
Ratten was sacked because he was perceived to have underperformed. We said top 4 was the goal and were top of the ladder at 4-1 after 5 rounds.
He was sacked as 11 wins and a loss to the Gold Coast was deemed unacceptable for this list.
Now we have a coach who most are happy with, to win 8 games and lose to Melbourne with, because he said the list isn't good enough. Again, if Ratten won 11 games and we played finals last year (by default, but still won one), why are we judging coaches on different criteria and accepting mediocrity from one but not the other?
Hawthorn sacked Peter Schwab in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year after four good seasons. Clarkson's first two years were poor with 5 and 9 wins respectively. The rest is history.
Yep nice point MBB...
What was clarksons experience before that?
If we are going on reputation with Malthouse, what made Clarkson a good choice. Why would Malthouse been a better choice than Hinkley (as an example)
Ok serious question time...
If we are happy with 8 wins in a season and losing to Melbourne why did we sack Ratten?
Because the value of a head coach isn't judged on game science alone. In a realistic sense head coach has duty to direct many of the other departments and people that exist to support the overall vision (which he is responsible for delivering). It's fair to say that a group has to be pulling in the same direction to achieve success. It's been reported that Ratts wasn't that way inclined, that there were some difficulties around managing people, and that he interpreted difference of opinion as personally offensive rather rather than professionally constructive. His forte is predominately the science of the game , rather than that, as well as science of people and the organization. That's why he is an excellent assistant coach. Clearly it had more to do with lack of faith in him as head coach in broader sense, rather than win loss record, the club even implied as such.
For me this seems to be closer to the mark than anything else.
Five years in the job, and at the first sign of trouble on the field they ousted him ignoring the sacking of Fevola, and also the fact that we had been cruelled by injuries in season 2012.
From memory the vote on it was a split vote. If after 5 years the board still has a split vote on the ability of the senior coach to stay at the club and do the job, then its reasonable to take the action of going a different direction IMHO. After all, if you dont have faith of the board you are dead man walking anyway.
Hawthorn sacked Peter Schwab in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year after four good seasons. Clarkson's first two years were poor with 5 and 9 wins respectively. The rest is history.
Carlton sacked Wayne Brittain in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year. Pagans first two years were poor with 4 and 10 wins respectively. The rest is history. ;)
After all, if you dont have faith of the board you are dead man walking anyway.
The board don't seem to have faith in one another.
Yep nice point MBB...
What was clarksons experience before that?
If we are going on reputation with Malthouse, what made Clarkson a good choice. Why would Malthouse been a better choice than Hinkley (as an example)
From wikipedia (hardly the best source, but usually its accurate with a history/timeline of things achieved):
Coaching career
Clarkson served as a runner with the Melbourne Football Club in 1998 and was an assistant coach under Tim Watson at St Kilda in 1999 before taking over as head coach at Werribee in the VFL in 2000. He moved to Central District in South Australia, where he was a Premiership coach in his debut year 2001. In 2003 he became the midfield coach at Port Adelaide and forward coach in 2004.
He was appointed his first senior AFL coaching role at the Hawthorn Football Club for the 2005 season, when the Hawks appointed Clarkson to lead their rebuilding phase. Clarkson was prepared to delist older players and instill a youth policy. Club veterans Rayden Tallis, Mark Graham, Kris Barlow, Luke McCabe and Lance Picioane left the club while Nathan Thompson was trade to North Melbourne. His side could only manage five wins in his debut season. Another round of culling and the club bid farewell to Angelo Lekkas, Nick Holland, and traded Jonathan Hay and Nathan Lonie. Clarkson brought to the club delisted footballers Brent Guerra and Stephen Gilham who he knew from his time at Port Adelaide.
Regarding the second part of your post, I would say that the only reason that stands out to me to go with Malthouse over Hinkley is more to do with trust than anything else.
Its easier to have faith in a man that has been involved in AFL coaching for 30 years that you have worked with in the past (in much of our footy club's cases) than it is to have faith in someone who has yet to perform the role of head coach.
Its also worth nothing that given the presidency situation at our club, any "rookie" or inexperienced coach would have been dead man walking come end of season particularly when you consider that our on field fortunes (regarding getting players out there consistently) have not improved significantly since 2012 and a new President is likely to want to establish a point of difference to the outgoing one. Its for this reason alone, I dont care about Logiudice becoming president as it means that the point of difference doesnt need to be established... YET. This might change in a year or two but by then we should have found out whether or not we need to burn it down to rebuild it, or whether or not we are on the right track again.
Thanks Denim...
I to am not trying to turn this into a Ratten thing but if we look at this objectively.
Ratten was sacked because he was perceived to have underperformed. We said top 4 was the goal and were top of the ladder at 4-1 after 5 rounds.
He was sacked as 11 wins and a loss to the Gold Coast was deemed unacceptable for this list.
Now we have a coach who most are happy with, to win 8 games and lose to Melbourne with, because he said the list isn't good enough. Again, if Ratten won 11 games and we played finals last year (by default, but still won one), why are we judging coaches on different criteria and accepting mediocrity from one but not the other?
Hawthorn sacked Peter Schwab in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year after four good seasons. Clarkson's first two years were poor with 5 and 9 wins respectively. The rest is history.
One thing about Clarko was he set the agenda very early. Good players were traded out, the strategy was clear from day one. Our plan changes from month to month. We'll string three wins together and suddenly we'll be at 11 o'clock again.
OK, Some interesting Debate and discussion.
It is becoming clear that the old Carlton way came to the fore here. We coveted someone better and when they became available we paved the way for him to come to the football club. It's not to dissimilar to the Mark Harvey/Ross Lyon scenario which seems to have worked for now. Harvey doing a decent Job, but Lyon doing it better. The thing with that is Lyon built on Harvey's foundations, where Malthouse seems to be stripping it back.
I guess my problem with the whole scenario, is we sacked Ratten that he didn't meet expectations, then lowered those expectations in the media, the supporters and the club, so the new guy, who will not meet the same expectations that Ratten was sacked for, can claim he needs to rebuild.
When Ratten lost to the GC, not a man on here didnt think Ratten was going, yet when we lost to Melbourne, many were OK with that and blamed the list, the development, the injuries (which is a laugh, as we couldn't use that excuse in 2012), the weather, the Crisis in the Ukraine etc... everything but the coach.
I was happy to see improvement with Malthouse, hoping for another finals appearance and games into the young guys and structures and gameplan being bedded down. I havent seen that and thus my expectations have not been met. We will only win 8-10 games this year and that is a fail IMO, but others see it as a necessary evil, yet Ratten wasnt afforded the same luxury.
If we are lucky, the hawks are struggling a bit and we may get them on a good night... I also noticed today that we have 3 x 6 day breaks in a row, then a 8 day break but travel to Perth. I think this will severely hamper any run home that we have.
I believe purely and simply Ratten just couldn't get his head around "the manager" aspect to being a head coach and thus couldn't sell himself to the club and board like Mick probably does. I would go as far as to say that Ratten is probably a better pure footy coach than Mick but just lacked in the overall managing aspect. I mean has anyone seen Mick try and kick a footy (oh god).
Ratten also had to paper over a lot of cracks and wasn't afforded the time to get it right like Mick is being now. Judd was the biggest paper as well.
OK, Some interesting Debate and discussion.
It is becoming clear that the old Carlton way came to the fore here. We coveted someone better and when they became available we paved the way for him to come to the football club. It's not to dissimilar to the Mark Harvey/Ross Lyon scenario which seems to have worked for now. Harvey doing a decent Job, but Lyon doing it better. The thing with that is Lyon built on Harvey's foundations, where Malthouse seems to be stripping it back.
I guess my problem with the whole scenario, is we sacked Ratten that he didn't meet expectations, then lowered those expectations in the media, the supporters and the club, so the new guy, who will not meet the same expectations that Ratten was sacked for, can claim he needs to rebuild.
When Ratten lost to the GC, not a man on here didnt think Ratten was going, yet when we lost to Melbourne, many were OK with that and blamed the list, the development, the injuries (which is a laugh, as we couldn't use that excuse in 2012), the weather, the Crisis in the Ukraine etc... everything but the coach.
I was happy to see improvement with Malthouse, hoping for another finals appearance and games into the young guys and structures and gameplan being bedded down. I havent seen that and thus my expectations have not been met. We will only win 8-10 games this year and that is a fail IMO, but others see it as a necessary evil, yet Ratten wasnt afforded the same luxury.
If we are lucky, the hawks are struggling a bit and we may get them on a good night... I also noticed today that we have 3 x 6 day breaks in a row, then a 8 day break but travel to Perth. I think this will severely hamper any run home that we have.
Firstly before we continue, I too am dissapointed. I like everyone else here, had us on the improve and remember being bullish about our chances for the year on paper. The thing that the first 4 rounds taught me though was that we are intrinsically a team of 2 layers relying on sometimes propositions.
Group 1 Layer that fires and wins us games.
Group 2 Layer that is a group with a blend of different deficiencies. Some are kids learning their trade. Others are supremely talented but are "off" more often than they are on, others are honest triers that are more suited to VFL football than they are AFL football and are exposed against the strongest sides in the competition.
Then you divide up our list into those 2 layers. You recognise that over the past few years, more have moved from group 1 and into group 2, and almost none have made the jump from group 2 into group 1. Some of this is regression of top end talent (getting older, slower, more injured and unable to deliver the top level footy that they have been) and the others are players that stopped developing and other sides started figuring out how to nullify their strengths or that having fewer that are in layer 1 means that the rest have more pressure piled onto them. Too much left to too few. Seems normal at Carlton, must change as I dont see this occurring with premiership teams in the modern era.
On reflection, 2012 told us the story. Our layer that fires and wins us games largely broke down. Our expectations changed so dramatically that finally not making the 8 was the straw that broke the camels back rather than missing the top 4 altogether. The reality is, the camel broke before then. The camel broke when we failed to create an environment that had a team that was really playing for each other, and had everyone worked together to achieve our results and not through individual brilliance. Again, the weakest link in the most recent premiership sides have often been the guys that have won premierships for teams (Lewis Roberts-Thompson is an example).
Of your post I have selected some points.
1. The old Carlton way I dont think was a factor here. I think its too easy to look at the old Carlton way of doing things as the reason for why we got Malthouse. I think its more to do with faith in people and relationships. The old Carlton way was linked to the old regime and where ours resembles that way of doing things, different personnell are ringing in these changes. The culture of the place must have changed from that at some point (surely). When I think of the old Carlton way, it resembles more Elliott than it does Pratt. Elliott is a lie, cheat, steal and influence approach getting in a quick fix. Pratt is a matter of getting in the right people to do the job.
2. Stripping it back. The popular opinion of many has been that this was not only required but necessary to make the right moves required to really start playing good hard, tough uncompromising footy. I think comparing Lyon and Malthouse muddies the waters. Harvey wasnt as good a coach as Ratten, and as it appears, Harvey had more talent to work with than Harvey did, combined with a home ground advantage and a monstor ruckman that they really failed to make good use of during the journey. Lets not forget that Freo were a starter club and have been afforded a few luxuries that Carlton have not. The comparison is not even. You might argue that Malthouse should have had an easier time given Ratten's achievements, but I think that some of the foundations of Ratten and Micks game plan are polar opposites which results in some of our boys having a really hard time adjusting how they play. Ratten more about getting the ball forward quickly, Malthouse a little bit more patiently and precisely. Not conducive to the same skillsets.
3. Has Malthouse been the one to lower our expectations? I debate it. I would say the way our guys have played their footy has resulted in this rather than anything else. The inability to hit passes to players advantage is not a new thing for our team, and it happens frequently every game where guys are picking balls up off their toes, rather than running onto a ball at chest height. Hospital passes where we leave a bloke a sitting duck underneath the footy, or having to halve a contest between two opponents to win it. Ratten even blamed losing critical contests in season 2012 as to why we failed to win some games. Its not new and its been a problem for a while. Again, a leopard doesnt change its spots easily.
4. Melbourne. This result muddies the perspective. They wanted it more. Going back to the layers, Layer 1 misfired again, and we lost. Not surprising. We will lose in this fashion again until layer 2 starts providing the winning form. Layer 1 will re discover that form when it happens, and we will look better for it but until layer 2 becomes good forget achieving a lot.
5. Our season. Going back to our layers, the expectation on our wins, changes based on our top layer players again. Murphy and Gibbs are firing and we are showing a bit more winning form, but as we saw against the Pies and the Bombers any team that gets us on an "off" day will more than likely beat us particularly if they are not as schizofrenic as our team is with its form. Richmond are very much like us and have been over the journy
In closing, I can see why people are concerned. People have every right to be pessimistic and questioning of what is going on. Its the nature of our recent history that makes you do so, and nothing more. So long as we are not auctioning off our future to have some short term gains and short term wins then you know we are on the right track. We are not that good. We must continue looking to build for tomorrow.
OK, Some interesting Debate and discussion.
It is becoming clear that the old Carlton way came to the fore here. We coveted someone better and when they became available we paved the way for him to come to the football club. It's not to dissimilar to the Mark Harvey/Ross Lyon scenario which seems to have worked for now. Harvey doing a decent Job, but Lyon doing it better. The thing with that is Lyon built on Harvey's foundations, where Malthouse seems to be stripping it back.
I guess my problem with the whole scenario, is we sacked Ratten that he didn't meet expectations, then lowered those expectations in the media, the supporters and the club, so the new guy, who will not meet the same expectations that Ratten was sacked for, can claim he needs to rebuild.
When Ratten lost to the GC, not a man on here didnt think Ratten was going, yet when we lost to Melbourne, many were OK with that and blamed the list, the development, the injuries (which is a laugh, as we couldn't use that excuse in 2012), the weather, the Crisis in the Ukraine etc... everything but the coach.
I was happy to see improvement with Malthouse, hoping for another finals appearance and games into the young guys and structures and gameplan being bedded down. I havent seen that and thus my expectations have not been met. We will only win 8-10 games this year and that is a fail IMO, but others see it as a necessary evil, yet Ratten wasnt afforded the same luxury.
If we are lucky, the hawks are struggling a bit and we may get them on a good night... I also noticed today that we have 3 x 6 day breaks in a row, then a 8 day break but travel to Perth. I think this will severely hamper any run home that we have.
Totally agree mate, it's amazing how many can't see it. Pepole I talk to plus some on here, who only 18mths ago had expectation with th enew coach that year 1 = learning year, year 2 = improve to move into top 4-6. Now those same people are excited and happy to accept anthother 3 years of pain and this year are already booking September holidays.
Hawthorn sacked Peter Schwab in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year after four good seasons. Clarkson's first two years were poor with 5 and 9 wins respectively. The rest is history.
Carlton sacked Wayne Brittain in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year. Pagans first two years were poor with 4 and 10 wins respectively. The rest is history. ;)
We keep going back to Pagan but his record was beyond poor, the Essendon game in rd 3 was horrific but that happened every 3 or 4 weeks when Pagan was around. Aside from their age I just don't see any similarities.
On reflection, 2012 told us the story. Our layer that fires and wins us games largely broke down. Our expectations changed so dramatically that finally not making the 8 was the straw that broke the camels back rather than missing the top 4 altogether. The reality is, the camel broke before then. The camel broke when we failed to create an environment that had a team that was really playing for each other, and had everyone worked together to achieve our results and not through individual brilliance.
See that's nothing but an assumption. Facts say Ratten did very well in building this side. The weaknesses have become apparent under MM. Strange coincidence?
1. The old Carlton way I dont think was a factor here. I think its too easy to look at the old Carlton way of doing things as the reason for why we got Malthouse. I think its more to do with faith in people and relationships. The old Carlton way was linked to the old regime and where ours resembles that way of doing things, different personnell are ringing in these changes. The culture of the place must have changed from that at some point (surely). When I think of the old Carlton way, it resembles more Elliott than it does Pratt. Elliott is a lie, cheat, steal and influence approach getting in a quick fix. Pratt is a matter of getting in the right people to do the job.
Kernahan oversaw the extension of Pagan's contract and the hiring of MM. Same old regime, same old way. Once again, your arguments are based on assumption, in reality you don't really know. You're just putting forward a hypothetical that supports the club's decision. In reality, it means little.
2. Stripping it back. The popular opinion of many has been that this was not only required but necessary to make the right moves required to really start playing good hard, tough uncompromising footy. I think comparing Lyon and Malthouse muddies the waters. Harvey wasnt as good a coach as Ratten, and as it appears, Harvey had more talent to work with than Harvey did, combined with a home ground advantage and a monstor ruckman that they really failed to make good use of during the journey. Lets not forget that Freo were a starter club and have been afforded a few luxuries that Carlton have not. The comparison is not even. You might argue that Malthouse should have had an easier time given Ratten's achievements, but I think that some of the foundations of Ratten and Micks game plan are polar opposites which results in some of our boys having a really hard time adjusting how they play. Ratten more about getting the ball forward quickly, Malthouse a little bit more patiently and precisely. Not conducive to the same skillsets.
So why do you pay so much money for a coach that struggles to adapt to a list and demands a list gets turned over to support his archaic gameplan? In reality, that's what you're saying, our list does not suit MM's gameplan. Surely this would affect the 'layer 1' players as you put it as they're the ones that will win the game. MM has failed to adapt to the list at all, Ratten worked out a gameplan to complement the list.
3. Has Malthouse been the one to lower our expectations? I debate it. I would say the way our guys have played their footy has resulted in this rather than anything else. The inability to hit passes to players advantage is not a new thing for our team, and it happens frequently every game where guys are picking balls up off their toes, rather than running onto a ball at chest height. Hospital passes where we leave a bloke a sitting duck underneath the footy, or having to halve a contest between two opponents to win it. Ratten even blamed losing critical contests in season 2012 as to why we failed to win some games. Its not new and its been a problem for a while. Again, a leopard doesnt change its spots easily.
Our guys have played footy the way Mick has wanted them to. It hasn't worked at all. Once again, this would affect our layer 1 players as you put it as they're the ones that will win us games. Malthouse is accountable, you don't seem to want to push any blame onto him at all.
4. Melbourne. This result muddies the perspective. They wanted it more. Going back to the layers, Layer 1 misfired again, and we lost. Not surprising. We will lose in this fashion again until layer 2 starts providing the winning form. Layer 1 will re discover that form when it happens, and we will look better for it but until layer 2 becomes good forget achieving a lot.
So who exactly is responsible for layer 1 performing? When we lose no doubt it's them, but when we win mick gets the credit. Do you not see the hypocrisy? The facts are, these players are underperforming under the current coach, and the flaws you point to were only apparent under the previous regime in 2012, when we were riddled with injury.
5. Our season. Going back to our layers, the expectation on our wins, changes based on our top layer players again. Murphy and Gibbs are firing and we are showing a bit more winning form, but as we saw against the Pies and the Bombers any team that gets us on an "off" day will more than likely beat us particularly if they are not as schizofrenic as our team is with its form. Richmond are very much like us and have been over the journy
This is no different to any other side. The coach has a responsibility to get said 'layer 1'players up on a regular basis.
Hawthorn sacked Peter Schwab in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year after four good seasons. Clarkson's first two years were poor with 5 and 9 wins respectively. The rest is history.
Carlton sacked Wayne Brittain in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year. Pagans first two years were poor with 4 and 10 wins respectively. The rest is history. ;)
We keep going back to Pagan but his record was beyond poor, the Essendon game in rd 3 was horrific but that happened every 3 or 4 weeks when Pagan was around. Aside from their age I just don't see any similarities.
Pagan had excuses, his list was awful, regardless of who's fault that was.
Hawthorn sacked Peter Schwab in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year after four good seasons. Clarkson's first two years were poor with 5 and 9 wins respectively. The rest is history.
Carlton sacked Wayne Brittain in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year. Pagans first two years were poor with 4 and 10 wins respectively. The rest is history. ;)
We keep going back to Pagan but his record was beyond poor, the Essendon game in rd 3 was horrific but that happened every 3 or 4 weeks when Pagan was around. Aside from their age I just don't see any similarities.
I don't even consider the age factor....as a 60+ year old that's not an issue for me......
60 is the new forty.
The parallels and the arguments between the circumstances 2004/2014 are very much there.....if you want to look at them....not necessarily with the individuals but certainly with the situations.
Pagan haters (and I'm a strong critic) won't necessarily like this but......if Pagan had Malthouse's lists he'd probably have pretty similar (if not better) results.
Hell...... even, if he had Ratten's list with Judd firing and Fev in near 100 goal form we'd probably remember him more fondly.
The parallels and the arguments between the circumstances 2004/2014 are very much there.....if you want to look at them....not necessarily with the individuals but certainly with the situations.
A few of us saw the writing on the wall.......
Hawthorn sacked Peter Schwab in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year after four good seasons. Clarkson's first two years were poor with 5 and 9 wins respectively. The rest is history.
Carlton sacked Wayne Brittain in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year. Pagans first two years were poor with 4 and 10 wins respectively. The rest is history. ;)
We keep going back to Pagan but his record was beyond poor, the Essendon game in rd 3 was horrific but that happened every 3 or 4 weeks when Pagan was around. Aside from their age I just don't see any similarities.
I don't even consider the age factor....as a 60+ year old that's not an issue for me......
60 is the new forty.
The parallels and the arguments between the circumstances 2004/2014 are very much there.....if you want to look at them....not necessarily with the individuals but certainly with the situations.
Pagan haters (and I'm a strong critic) won't necessarily like this but......if Pagan had Malthouse's lists he'd probably have pretty similar (if not better) results.
Hell...... even, if he had Ratten's list with Judd firing and Fev in near 100 goal form we'd probably remember him more fondly.
This is one reason why I am hesitant to decide whether or not 2011 was the coach or not and why I think Ratten's senior coaching credentials has a major question mark next to them. We are seeing the result of Carlton with CJ and without him. Hell, even in the final against Richmond 10 minutes of him rampaging setup the win.
We had a lot of deficiencies covered up firstly by Fev in top form and secondly by Judd in top form, and I dont believe its a coincidence that without one of them on fire, we are not fairing all that well more often than not.
There is a reason why he won the brownlow playing for us. Even with Dane Swann in rampaging form. Not many took votes off him.
Hell...... even, if he had Ratten's list with Judd firing and Fev in near 100 goal form we'd probably remember him more fondly.
He had Fev, if he had Judd we might have won a couple more games and few games might have been 50 point losses rather than 80 points. The players hated his guts so like I said no comparison.
This is one reason why I am hesitant to decide whether or not 2011 was the coach or not and why I think Ratten's senior coaching credentials has a major question mark next to them. We are seeing the result of Carlton with CJ and without him. Hell, even in the final against Richmond 10 minutes of him rampaging setup the win.
We had a lot of deficiencies covered up firstly by Fev in top form and secondly by Judd in top form, and I dont believe its a coincidence that without one of them on fire, we are not fairing all that well more often than not.
There is a reason why he won the brownlow playing for us. Even with Dane Swann in rampaging form. Not many took votes off him.
In that case Ratten must get a HUGE tick for 2011. Judd was pretty ordinary in both finals, Fev was long gone and Gibbs, Kreuzer and Waite all missed that fateful night in Subiaco. We should have won anyway and got into a prelim. I'm pretty sure murphy won the coaches award that year and Judd's Brownlow win was a shock to everyone. MM now has Murphy as a further developed player and blokes like Gibbs, Yarran, Garlett, hendo, Walker, Robbo, Laidler (whoops) , Warnock et al are all further developed.
Just looking at a thread after thew WCE game.....this is my comment re Judd.
Exactly there was just no power, he can usually push off these types and as you said, he's used to carrying 3 players on his back. I know it's frustrating but anyone that wants to be critical of his performance really has not too much idea. In the end I probably wouldn't have played him because we were one man down in the middle in the second half. And at one stage when Priddis went on to him he just started winning clearance after clearance.
So no you're just looking for excuses again.
Hell...... even, if he had Ratten's list with Judd firing and Fev in near 100 goal form we'd probably remember him more fondly.
He had Fev, if he had Judd we might have won a couple more games and few games might have been 50 point losses rather than 80 points. The players hated his guts so like I said no comparison.
Pago would have kept Kennedy, think he said give up picks 1&3 which is a steep price but JK would have been nice right about now. Wonder how an extra year would have turned out? :P
On reflection, 2012 told us the story. Our layer that fires and wins us games largely broke down. Our expectations changed so dramatically that finally not making the 8 was the straw that broke the camels back rather than missing the top 4 altogether. The reality is, the camel broke before then. The camel broke when we failed to create an environment that had a team that was really playing for each other, and had everyone worked together to achieve our results and not through individual brilliance.
See that's nothing but an assumption. Facts say Ratten did very well in building this side. The weaknesses have become apparent under MM. Strange coincidence?
1. The old Carlton way I dont think was a factor here. I think its too easy to look at the old Carlton way of doing things as the reason for why we got Malthouse. I think its more to do with faith in people and relationships. The old Carlton way was linked to the old regime and where ours resembles that way of doing things, different personnell are ringing in these changes. The culture of the place must have changed from that at some point (surely). When I think of the old Carlton way, it resembles more Elliott than it does Pratt. Elliott is a lie, cheat, steal and influence approach getting in a quick fix. Pratt is a matter of getting in the right people to do the job.
Kernahan oversaw the extension of Pagan's contract and the hiring of MM. Same old regime, same old way. Once again, your arguments are based on assumption, in reality you don't really know. You're just putting forward a hypothetical that supports the club's decision. In reality, it means little.
2. Stripping it back. The popular opinion of many has been that this was not only required but necessary to make the right moves required to really start playing good hard, tough uncompromising footy. I think comparing Lyon and Malthouse muddies the waters. Harvey wasnt as good a coach as Ratten, and as it appears, Harvey had more talent to work with than Harvey did, combined with a home ground advantage and a monstor ruckman that they really failed to make good use of during the journey. Lets not forget that Freo were a starter club and have been afforded a few luxuries that Carlton have not. The comparison is not even. You might argue that Malthouse should have had an easier time given Ratten's achievements, but I think that some of the foundations of Ratten and Micks game plan are polar opposites which results in some of our boys having a really hard time adjusting how they play. Ratten more about getting the ball forward quickly, Malthouse a little bit more patiently and precisely. Not conducive to the same skillsets.
So why do you pay so much money for a coach that struggles to adapt to a list and demands a list gets turned over to support his archaic gameplan? In reality, that's what you're saying, our list does not suit MM's gameplan. Surely this would affect the 'layer 1' players as you put it as they're the ones that will win the game. MM has failed to adapt to the list at all, Ratten worked out a gameplan to complement the list.
3. Has Malthouse been the one to lower our expectations? I debate it. I would say the way our guys have played their footy has resulted in this rather than anything else. The inability to hit passes to players advantage is not a new thing for our team, and it happens frequently every game where guys are picking balls up off their toes, rather than running onto a ball at chest height. Hospital passes where we leave a bloke a sitting duck underneath the footy, or having to halve a contest between two opponents to win it. Ratten even blamed losing critical contests in season 2012 as to why we failed to win some games. Its not new and its been a problem for a while. Again, a leopard doesnt change its spots easily.
Our guys have played footy the way Mick has wanted them to. It hasn't worked at all. Once again, this would affect our layer 1 players as you put it as they're the ones that will win us games. Malthouse is accountable, you don't seem to want to push any blame onto him at all.
4. Melbourne. This result muddies the perspective. They wanted it more. Going back to the layers, Layer 1 misfired again, and we lost. Not surprising. We will lose in this fashion again until layer 2 starts providing the winning form. Layer 1 will re discover that form when it happens, and we will look better for it but until layer 2 becomes good forget achieving a lot.
So who exactly is responsible for layer 1 performing? When we lose no doubt it's them, but when we win mick gets the credit. Do you not see the hypocrisy? The facts are, these players are underperforming under the current coach, and the flaws you point to were only apparent under the previous regime in 2012, when we were riddled with injury.
5. Our season. Going back to our layers, the expectation on our wins, changes based on our top layer players again. Murphy and Gibbs are firing and we are showing a bit more winning form, but as we saw against the Pies and the Bombers any team that gets us on an "off" day will more than likely beat us particularly if they are not as schizofrenic as our team is with its form. Richmond are very much like us and have been over the journy
This is no different to any other side. The coach has a responsibility to get said 'layer 1'players up on a regular basis.
Facts:
Ratten did very well in building this side?
Your opinion that Ratts did very well with building this side is an assumption. The facts say that he didnt. remember, wins/losses? IF he was so good at building it, it would be winning flags right this minute and would have done so under him. Therefore he didnt do very well building this side.
Clarkson did very well building a side.
Thompson did very well building a side.
Scott is doing very well re-building a side.
Longmire did very well building a side.
Buckley is doing very well building a side.
Hinkley is doing very well building a side.
You know why?
They rock up to play more often than not. They win more than they lose. They play good footy. They are sustainably playing in finals football (based on limited data and ladder position) and finally, all of them have smashed the living bejeesus out of the side that Ratten built and here is the kicker, their better performers today were mostly being recruited and developed during the time when Carlton was being developed under B. Ratten.
He did well in two finals. We sold our future to experience success today, and our membership numbers and weekly attendances tell the story of people being sold false promises.
How long does Mick get before he no longer has Ratten and the players to blame for going backwards?
It's like Ratten never had measures and never met them around here....
Facts:
Ratten did very well in building this side?
Your opinion that Ratts did very well with building this side is an assumption. The facts say that he didnt. remember, wins/losses? IF he was so good at building it, it would be winning flags right this minute and would have done so under him. Therefore he didnt do very well building this side.
Are you forking serious? Get a grip man, seriously.
Fact, we improved every season under Ratten other than his last year when he were riddled with injury.
Fact he set a fair benchmark in every one of those years which he was able to achieve. Most agreed these were fair enough benchmarks to judge him on.
Fact, you cannot blame Ratten for the sides regression since Malthouse took over, Ratten simply isn't here any more and he did fine with what MM has. Malthouse is here and is accountable no matter how much you try and shift the blame.
You are seriously delusional, the
facts contradict your theory.
Is anyone keeping score on the above ^^. It's run over a few threads now... :))
Is anyone keeping score on the above ^^. It's run over a few threads now... :))
We're in front :D.....But I've forgotten which side I'm on ???
Is anyone keeping score on the above ^^. It's run over a few threads now... :))
We're in front :D.....But I've forgotten which side I'm on ???
Should keep us going during the bye ;)
Facts:
Ratten did very well in building this side?
Your opinion that Ratts did very well with building this side is an assumption. The facts say that he didnt. remember, wins/losses? IF he was so good at building it, it would be winning flags right this minute and would have done so under him. Therefore he didnt do very well building this side.
Are you forking serious? Get a grip man, seriously.
Fact, we improved every season under Ratten other than his last year when he were riddled with injury. Fact he set a fair benchmark in every one of those years which he was able to achieve. Most agreed these were fair enough benchmarks to judge him on. Fact, you cannot blame Ratten for the sides regression since Malthouse took over, Ratten simply isn't here any more and he did fine with what MM has. Malthouse is here and is accountable no matter how much you try and shift the blame.
You are seriously delusional, the facts contradict your theory.
Fact is we have the worst spine out of any side in the AFL yet according to you he did a very good job building the side.
Its about time you agreed to disagree and move on, because only the delusional would be happy with the side that Ratten built. Its clearly deficient. Particularly when you consider that the only reliable key position player on our team is Lachlan Henderson who Ratten recruited by accident.
Fact is we have the worst spine out of any side in the AFL yet according to you he did a very good job building the side.
Its about time you agreed to disagree and move on, because only the delusional would be happy with the side that Ratten built. Its clearly deficient. Particularly when you consider that the only reliable key position player on our team is Lachlan Henderson who Ratten recruited by accident.
That's opinion Thry lol. :))
How long does Mick get before he no longer has Ratten and the players to blame for going backwards?
It's like Ratten never had measures and never met them around here....
Ratten got 5 years and so did Pagan so I reckon we judge him after 5 years.
Mods, this is the latest thread to be hijacked by the Ratts v. MM debate! I don't have a problem with that being discussed in a thread dedicated to that topic, but too many threads are degenerating into that argument. It's getting tiresome especially since the hardliners on each side keep repeating the same old arguments.
Is anyone keeping score on the above ^^. It's run over a few threads now... :))
We're in front :D.....But I've forgotten which side I'm on ???
War... oooh... yeah.... what is it good for?
Mods, this is the latest thread to be hijacked by the Ratts v. MM debate! I don't have a problem with that being discussed in a thread dedicated to that topic, but too many threads are degenerating into that argument. It's getting tiresome especially since the hardliners on each side keep repeating the same old arguments.
Can we start a PI2C vs. Thry thread? ............... Just for laughs C:-)
Mods, this is the latest thread to be hijacked by the Ratts v. MM debate! I don't have a problem with that being discussed in a thread dedicated to that topic, but too many threads are degenerating into that argument. It's getting tiresome especially since the hardliners on each side keep repeating the same old arguments.
Can we start a PI2C vs. Thry thread? ............... Just for laughs C:-)
I'd love to do it but I would hate to own Thry any more than I already have, I do have a soft spot for him you know. ;)
Mods, this is the latest thread to be hijacked by the Ratts v. MM debate! I don't have a problem with that being discussed in a thread dedicated to that topic, but too many threads are degenerating into that argument. It's getting tiresome especially since the hardliners on each side keep repeating the same old arguments.
Can we start a PI2C vs. Thry thread? ............... Just for laughs C:-)
I'd love to do it but I would hate to own Thry any more than I already have, I do have a soft spot for him you know. ;)
Have you spoken to him about these feelings? ;)
How long does Mick get before he no longer has Ratten and the players to blame for going backwards?
It's like Ratten never had measures and never met them around here....
Ratten got 5 years and so did Pagan so I reckon we judge him after 5 years.
Pagan should have been axed years before and would have if we had money. We couldn't cut Ratten when we were saying your goal is to do X and he did it otherwise I reckon he would have been gone as well.
I can't see Mick being renewed if we don't go forward in 2013 but he's a survivor
Mods, this is the latest thread to be hijacked by the Ratts v. MM debate! I don't have a problem with that being discussed in a thread dedicated to that topic, but too many threads are degenerating into that argument. It's getting tiresome especially since the hardliners on each side keep repeating the same old arguments.
Can we start a PI2C vs. Thry thread? ............... Just for laughs C:-)
I'd love to do it but I would hate to own Thry any more than I already have, I do have a soft spot for him you know. ;)
:D
You know you are actually losing when you think you own someone.
;)
Particularly when you infer meaning in things that have not been written!
Mods, this is the latest thread to be hijacked by the Ratts v. MM debate! I don't have a problem with that being discussed in a thread dedicated to that topic, but too many threads are degenerating into that argument. It's getting tiresome especially since the hardliners on each side keep repeating the same old arguments.
Can we start a PI2C vs. Thry thread? ............... Just for laughs C:-)
I'd love to do it but I would hate to own Thry any more than I already have, I do have a soft spot for him you know. ;)
:D
You know you are actually losing when you think you own someone.
;)
Particularly when you infer meaning in things that have not been written!
That's opinion Thry! :P ;)
Mods, this is the latest thread to be hijacked by the Ratts v. MM debate! I don't have a problem with that being discussed in a thread dedicated to that topic, but too many threads are degenerating into that argument. It's getting tiresome especially since the hardliners on each side keep repeating the same old arguments.
Yep...... fair point.
.........to the "Malthouse" thread with you combatants.
Use this thread to discuss the run home, projected wins etc.
@cookie
It's a bit like King Canute ordering back the waves though. ;)
If folk want to talk about the run home they'll do so and the best we can hope is that particular aspect will dominate the thread.
Mods, this is the latest thread to be hijacked by the Ratts v. MM debate! I don't have a problem with that being discussed in a thread dedicated to that topic, but too many threads are degenerating into that argument. It's getting tiresome especially since the hardliners on each side keep repeating the same old arguments.
Yep...... fair point.
.........to the "Malthouse" thread with you combatants.
Use this thread to discuss the run home, projected wins etc.
@cookie
It's a bit like King Canute ordering back the waves though. ;)
If folk want to talk about the run home they'll do so and the best we can hope is that particular aspect will dominate the thread.
Thanks Lods.
Know what you mean about Canute! He ended up getting his feet wet. ;D
Mods, this is the latest thread to be hijacked by the Ratts v. MM debate! I don't have a problem with that being discussed in a thread dedicated to that topic, but too many threads are degenerating into that argument. It's getting tiresome especially since the hardliners on each side keep repeating the same old arguments.
Yep...... fair point.
.........to the "Malthouse" thread with you combatants.
Use this thread to discuss the run home, projected wins etc.
@cookie
It's a bit like King Canute ordering back the waves though. ;)
If folk want to talk about the run home they'll do so and the best we can hope is that particular aspect will dominate the thread.
Thanks Lods.
Know what you mean about Canute! He ended up getting his feet wet. ;D
My fault, although I did bring it back on topic to be ignored... (6 day breaks people!!)
But it was just interesting that we sacked Ratten for only winning 11 games yet most are happy with wining 8 this year.... No one else thinks that's strange or hypocritical?
I do! :P
@shadesy
I'm definitely not happy about only winning 8 games for the year but I can reluctantly understand why this may happen. The club is going through a great upheaval currently and this can impact on how the team may perform until things settle down again. Hopefully it'll all be worth it, time will tell.
I don't think hypocrisy comes into it ATM. Great change always creates new problems and I think it's reasonable to reserve our judgement until End of year. In my case that judgement will be focused on how well we are positioned to go forward based on team and player performances in the remaining games.
yet most are happy with wining 8 this year.... No one else thinks that's strange or hypocritical?
Who?
In a season where you need 12-14 wins to get into finals and probably 15-17 to secure top 4, you simply can't drop as many games as we have early in the season. It's not impossible but highly unlikely from here and I remember seeing a stat a few years back (Robert Walls said the same thing during On the Couch a couple of years back as well); that if you lose the 4 out of your first 6-7 you're finished for the year as far as finals go.
We will have to play really well from here and hope things go against other teams (even year or something) to be bothering anyone in September. I think this year should be a development year now and we find out just how good Docherty, Cripps, Ellard, Casboult, White and others are whilst striving to build that team culture and strength that the good teams have. We need our C graders to push towards B graders - Robert Walls used to talk about the bottom part of the list and currently ours falls away far to much.
Personally I see alot of Dawes in how they are using Casboult now. Remember when Dawes first came on the scene they tried him as a relieving ruck which didn't work at first before he settled but he had Cloke as the main man up forward whereas we have no Cloke in this side currently. I think Levi will come good with a bit more time - imagine if we had two of them - I think things would be different.
Adelaide (MCG)
Brisbane (GABBA)
Geelong (ES)
Hawthorn (MCG)
Giants (SPO)
Collingwood (MCG)
St Kilda (ES)
Sydney (SCG
North (ES)
Freo (PS)
Gold Coast (ES)
Geelong (ES)
Port (AO)
Scum (MCG)
I've adjusted mine now to take out the Adelaide game as a certain victory, after watching them out muscle and outplay the Pies last night, we are in serious trouble.
Yep
Not a certainty by any means.
.....but we'll still probably pick up an upset or two so 8 remains the pass ::) mark.
Adelaide lost to Melbourne last week. Anyone can beat anyone.
Adelaide (MCG)
Brisbane (GABBA)
Geelong (ES)
Hawthorn (MCG)
Giants (SPO)
Collingwood (MCG)
St Kilda (ES)
Sydney (SCG
North (ES)
Freo (PS)
Gold Coast (ES)
Geelong (ES)
Port (AO)
Scum (MCG)
I've adjusted mine now to take out the Adelaide game as a certain victory, after watching them out muscle and outplay the Pies last night, we are in serious trouble.
I dont have any certs.....even Brisbane and the Giants are not gimme's IMO.....
Adelaide with Taylor Walker back will be tough....
Hawks without Mitchell, Rioli, Lake and Gibson becomes winnable game, we should have beat them last year when the umpires crucified us.
Hawks without Mitchell, Rioli, Lake and Gibson becomes winnable game, we should have beat them last year when the umpires crucified us.
You bet they did.
No we just weren't good enough
I never blame umps and I work with a number of hawk supporters who know this. Day after that game I told them we were raped by the umps, and they didn't argue.
I reckon we've got three wins left this season.
Who knows.
Maybe 3, maybe 8.
Worst part was Lloyd predicted it before anyone else. Should have paid attention to him, sometimes an outside perspective is needed - even Lloyd's.
We have Yarran, Menzel & Buckley to look forward to at least. BTW what happened to improving the last ten players on the list? We just arse them now?
He says this every season about us. Keep saying something eventually you will get it right. I also remember him bleating on about much much better the Scums list was heading in to the knock-out final in 2011. Look how that turned out.
Adelaide (MCG)
Brisbane (GABBA)
Geelong (ES)
Hawthorn (MCG)
Giants (SPO)
Collingwood (MCG)
St Kilda (ES)
Sydney (SCG
North (ES)
Freo (PS)
Gold Coast (ES)
Geelong (ES)
Port (AO)
Scum (MCG)
Wow I was way off, we have lost to the Lions and GWS, not even I could've predicted we'd be this bad and I'm considered to be a glass half empty.
I have highlighted the games in bold that I think we are certain to win. :P
R16: St Kilda (Etihad) W
R17: Sydney (SCG) L
R18: North Melbourne (Etihad) L
R19: Fremantle (Patersons) L
R20: Gold Coast (Etihad) L
R21: Geelong (Etihad) L
R22: Port Adelaide (Adelaide Oval) L
R23: Essendon (MCG)
1 win for the rest of the year is my tip......2 at an absolute stretch.
1 win for the rest of the year is my tip......2 at an absolute stretch.
I'll reserve judgement until I see the side that takes the field against the Saints
Hoping we only win one more, this weeks game against the aints. I'll be really pissssed if we win more than that, we've endured so much frustration, unintentionally of course, to get ourselves into an exciting position at the draft table, let's not fork it up now.
1 win for the rest of the year is my tip......2 at an absolute stretch.
Looking pretty accurate. We might scare a few of them - we certainly scared Geelong and Hawthorn - but when it comes to getting over the line we look that bit short.
May as well go for an early pick now. Looks like we'll probably get one too.
May as well go for an early pick now. Looks like we'll probably get one too.
Realistically St Kilda is probably our last win for the year and that's in no way certain. I am going on Sunday as it is probably the last time I get to sing the song 'hopefully' for the year.
Wow have you guys not learned? Tanking gets you nowhere. Especially now with GWS, GC and FA. The benefits of tanking have long diminished, you need a winning culture.
I must say it's quite hilarious, most people wanted MM to win a premiership, then when he turns out to be crappola they say it's the lists fault, he needs to rebuild, now they advocate tanking.
Compromised drafts are now finished Carrots. If I'm not mistaken this is the first un compromised draft since GWS and GC entered the comp.
@carrots, neither our club nor any of its officials would ever advocate tanking, they're far to responsible and honest. I'm personally advocating it :)
Compromised drafts are now finished Carrots. If I'm not mistaken this is the first un compromised draft since GWS and GC entered the comp.
Still compromised, as there are compensation picks from GC and GWS still in play this year. Not as bad as last year though.
Compromised drafts are now finished Carrots. If I'm not mistaken this is the first un compromised draft since GWS and GC entered the comp.
Still compromised, as there are compensation picks from GC and GWS still in play this year. Not as bad as last year though.
Ok, I didn't know that , do the compo picks occur before 1st round commences or at conclusion?
Compromised drafts are now finished Carrots. If I'm not mistaken this is the first un compromised draft since GWS and GC entered the comp.
Still compromised, as there are compensation picks from GC and GWS still in play this year. Not as bad as last year though.
Seriously??
What a Farce!! Both squads are now on par or further advanced than the rest of the league.
Wow have you guys not learned? Tanking gets you nowhere. Especially now with GWS, GC and FA. The benefits of tanking have long diminished, you need a winning culture.
I must say it's quite hilarious, most people wanted MM to win a premiership, then when he turns out to be crappola they say it's the lists fault, he needs to rebuild, now they advocate tanking.
First time for everything, but I agree.
Tanking is for Melbourne... We are Carlton.
We need to start reinventing the culture around the place, and tanking is not the way to do it.
Compromised drafts are now finished Carrots. If I'm not mistaken this is the first un compromised draft since GWS and GC entered the comp.
Still compromised, as there are compensation picks from GC and GWS still in play this year. Not as bad as last year though.
Seriously??
What a Farce!! Both squads are now on par or further advanced than the rest of the league.
Those aren't picks for GC and GWS. They are effectively free agent compos.
Wow have you guys not learned? Tanking gets you nowhere. Especially now with GWS, GC and FA. The benefits of tanking have long diminished, you need a winning culture.
I must say it's quite hilarious, most people wanted MM to win a premiership, then when he turns out to be crappola they say it's the lists fault, he needs to rebuild, now they advocate tanking.
First time for everything, but I agree.
Tanking is for Melbourne... We are Carlton.
We need to start reinventing the culture around the place, and tanking is not the way to do it.
We won't need to tank to get a very early. We're well on course for one by playing our normal game.
Wow have you guys not learned? Tanking gets you nowhere. Especially now with GWS, GC and FA. The benefits of tanking have long diminished, you need a winning culture.
I must say it's quite hilarious, most people wanted MM to win a premiership, then when he turns out to be crappola they say it's the lists fault, he needs to rebuild, now they advocate tanking.
First time for everything, but I agree.
Tanking is for Melbourne... We are Carlton.
We need to start reinventing the culture around the place, and tanking is not the way to do it.
We won't need to tank to get a very early. We're well on course for one by playing our normal game.
Precisely, although I'd change "playing our normal game" with "playing our usual players"